Itxa/671/2003 Of Chintamani Nagri Sahakari Pat.sanstha Ltd v. The Additional Commissioner Of Income- Tax,Range-3
High Court
03 Nov 2004 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/671/2003 Of Chintamani Nagri Sahakari Pat.sanstha Ltd v. The Additional Commissioner Of Income- Tax,Range-3
Date of order
03 Nov 2004
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Itxa/671/2003 Of Chintamani Nagri Sahakari Pat.sanstha Ltd v. The Additional Commissioner Of Income- Tax,Range-3, the High Court (2004) decided the matter.
Decision: The appeal is dismissed in limine.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.671 OF 2003
Chintamani Nagri Sahakari
Pat Sanstha Limited .. Appellant.
V/s.
The Addl. Commissioner of
Income-tax, Range-3, Kolhapur .. Respondent.
Mr.S.N. Inamdar for the appellant.
Mr.R.V. Desai, senior counsel with Ms.S.V. Bharucha
for the respondent.
CORAM : R.M. LODHA, &
CORAM : R.M. LODHA, &J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 3RD NOVEMBER, 2004.
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 3RD NOVEMBER, 2004.
P.C. :
Heard Mr.S.N. Inamdar, the learned
counsel for the appellant - assessee.
2. The Tribunal in the impugned order
observed thus :
". After hearing both the sides and
considering the material on record, I find
that the facts and circumstances with
respect to this penalty are similar to the
penalty under Section 271D and since
violation is there and the assessee has
not been able to establish that he had any
reasonable cause not to make the payment
through crossed cheque/draft, therefore,
penalty has rightly been held to be
leviable in view of provisions contained
in the Act and the decision taken by the
Pune Bench as relied upon by the learned
CIT(A), so action of the authorities below
2
is free from any infirmity and penalty is
confirmed."
3. The consideration of the matter by the
Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
The findings are concluded on facts.
4. No substantial question of law arises in
this appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limine.
(R.M. LODHA, J.)
(R.M. LODHA, J.)
(R.M. LODHA, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.